Thought you guys might like this. Click HERE.

It's interesting to play around with various scenarios, especially if one can do so without any preconceived biases. wink

Oops, on my first try I got a got a 269-269 tie. eek!

Interesting. The Democrats have got to win every state they did and carry a few that W barely won. It's very doable. I would add that given the Massachusetts Supreme Court's spectacular ruling today, Kerry is going to have a VERY HARD TIME in most of the former Confederate states unless--UNLESS--he picks either Edwards, Clark, or another identifiable Southerner and/or war hero; I read that one woman in South Carolina said she was going to vote for Bush even though her job and financial situation were bad, because Kerry was for gay marriage. When it was pointed out to her that he was on record as being "against gay marriage," she blurted out, well, he's from Massachusetts! So don't think that the GOP won't pull out all the stops in this regard, though I think it'll have less salience in states like Florida, West Virginia (where the economy is paramount), North Carolina (if Edwards is on board), and possibly Arkansas (if Clark is on board). Still, if the Democrats were to add Arizona, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Florida, it wouldn't matter, would it?

Added update: so I tried it, and if the Democrats were to keep all their states and win Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, New Hampshire, North Carolina and West Virginia, all doable, they would end up with 326 to 212. Any combo of border states plus Florida and New Hampshire--without a single deep South state save NC--would make it very close but in the Demos favor. Even without Florida and North Carolina, the Democrats still win if they get Nevada, New Hampshire and West Virginia. Without Nevada, it's tied 269-269. W ain't going to have a cakewalk by any measure!

[ February 04, 2004, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

fant, unless something remarkable happens, the presidential ticket will be Kerry/Edwards. Which one is the president and vice president is up for grabs. I think it's pretty understood that Kerry and Edwards would seek eachother out for a partnership.

Off to the House of Representatives the election then goes. THAT would be quite interesting, since each state delegation gets one vote.

MIB - It wouldn't be all that interesting unless there are GOP House incumbents who get beat. The House would vote 31-16-3 for Bush using the current makeup and assuming Independent Sanders of Vermont votes with the Democrats.

But if the election were that close, it would make the House races that much more important. Just 6 Republican incumbents losing could deny Bush the victory in the House on the 1st ballot, and make thing "verrrry eeeenteresting", but chaotic. wink

I know not everyone may be aware of this, but in 12 states, (CT, DE, IL, LA, MO, MT, NV, NM, NC, SD, UT, & WY) just one Republican incumbent losing would shift that state delegation from GOP to the Democrats. 4 other states (ID, KS, NH, and SC) a loss of one Republican incumbent would shift the state delegation to even, and non-voting. This is as good on going to the Democrats because you need 26 states to win.

Democrats need to keep from losing incumbents in NJ, ND, and TN as a loss of one Democrat would shift the state to Bush. A loss of two in Texas will also shift that state to Bush. Also, the three states that are tied, (MN, MS, and WI) would need to stay tied to deny Bush the state's vote.

Since there is really no data on tossup districts, it is difficult to predict whice states might shift. IMO, CT, SD seem plausible for a switch with the GOP related scandals. In NV and NC, there are GOP incumbents running for higher office opening these seats. Tauzin is retiring in LA so that could be in play. And Illinois trends Democrat with a few open or rematch seats. Overall it's possible that the Democrats could swing 6 states away from Bush, keep the rest from going "red" and leave the total at 25-22-3.

If that happens, and the House has to vote for the President from the top three , then gridlock ensues as no one gets a majority of the states. There would be enormous pressure on every member of Congress to break ranks and support the winner of the popular vote in their respective states. Especially among conservative southern Democrats.

The Senate under the Consititution per the 12th Amendment would quickly vote for Veep on a party line vote and Cheney would win that. If the deadlock does not break in the House.... Dick Cheney would become "Acting President" on January 20, 2005. Scary huh..... eek!

Interesting. On my go around neither party received the 270 to win - Repulsican's 266, Kerrycats 265. I did give the Mushites everything south of the Mason-Dixon line (except Louisiana), and Pennsylvania. Dems need to make inroads into the rust belt, pick up Nevada, West Virginia, hang onto New York - then peel off 5 more votes somewhere.

My God, can the Country stand back to back stolen elections?

Undercenter.... you missed one state. Your totals didn't add up to 538. Did you give Connecticut to Ross Perot?

Fantamos - I think Ohio is also in play. Bush got 51% of the vote there in 2000.

Okay, I have to ask this again, why on earth do you think New York is not going to go for Kerry-Edwards-Clark? Seriously, if ANY of these three is the standard bearer and/or VP candidate, the Democrats will win the state by a margin of at least 10 to 15%. All are ideologically on par with both the NY governor and the mayor, though they're likely to pick up far more black and Latino voters than Bloomberg did. In the last election, Al Bore won New York State by 60%-35% margin. It may not be as large this time through, but upstate New York has hemorrhaged jobs. New York City was slammed very hard by the recession and the 9/11 disaster. Wealthy and populous Nassau County has swung Democratic, which was unthinkable years ago, and Westchester and Suffolk, the other two most populous counties alongside the five boroughs of New York, probably would vote for the Democrat over W, since they're more socially progressive than the national Republican party. Just keep in mind that the vote for Gore over W was closer in New Jersey, Connecticut, Maine, and Vermont! (It was more lopsided in favor of Gore in Rhode Island and Massachusetts.) W is not going to win New York--that is, unless he becomes a Pataki-type GOPer, which is VERY VERY unlikely. He is governing from the Far Right these days--it may play in Georgia, but not in New York State.

[ February 05, 2004, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Here's how it played out for me.

I get the Dems to 260 with the following 21 states: Hawaii, the 3 west coast states, MN, IA, WI, IL, MI, WV, PA, NY, New England except for NH, NJ, DE, DC, MD, NY.

They need 10 more electoral votes to win. At least those 10 are available in 3 states the Dems have a shot at: Indiana, Ohio, and North Carolina.

Edwards on the ticket obviously would be a huge boost in NC, whose demographics are changing. Tons of young yankees drawn by economic opportunity to booming Charlotte, plus a big group of "half backs" -- northerners who retired to Florida, found it too far from home, too humid, too expensive, and too primitive, and moved halfway back.

Ohio and Indiana usually go Repub in presidential politics, but they have issues they share with their typically more liberal rust belt cousins Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. So a Dem win is not out of the question there.

NC or, especially, Ohio, would be a huge boost for the Dems, and make up for potential losses in some of the shakier states I mentioned in my list of 21 core Dem states.

Of course, if Dubya somehow pulls out an upset or CA or NY, then that's all she wrote.

So if I'm strategizing for the Dems, I focus on Cali and NY, and also on NC, Indiana, and Ohio.

Ski - New Mexico isn't on your list - Gore won there in 2000 and there is no reason to believe anything has changed. Arizona and Colorado were very close with Bush getting 51%. The demographics are changing in Arizona to the Democrats favor. Colorado could easily swing Democrat.

Nevada is also very much in play -- take out the Nader factor and Gore would have won - W capturered 49%. Another state where the deomgraphics are changing in the Democrats favor.

You put New Hampshire in the Republican column. Without Nader, Gore would have won handily there as well.

Ohio was close last time around and is most definitely in reach.

Even with Edwards on the ticket, North Carolina would be a stretch. Vice Presidential candidates seldom make a difference and the margin in North Carolina was very wide last time around and Gore was a Southerner.

Indiana is probably lost but Missouri was another 51% win for W. And we haven't even mentioned Florida. While it appears to be solidly W Country (overall)it's far from a certainty that he will win this time.

If the Democrats win N.C., they won't need it, because they'll have about 42 other states along with it. A generation ago N.C. had a reputation as the most liberal state in the South, largely because of its progressivism in education & civil rights, & especially in comparison to neighbors like Virginia, S.C., Georgia, Alabama & Mississippi. But since that time things have changed. Rural & working-class whites have transformed from a reliable Democratic voting bloc to a reliable Republican bloc, & as a group they are more backward-looking than ever. White Carolinians who are facing hard times, & there are alot of them, would blame affirmative action before they ever blame the policies of George W. Bush. (N.C. is the most rural state in the U.S., & the least unionized.) As for all of the newcomers to the state, they might not be as full of the old-time religion, but their arrival is generally considered to have made the state more Republican.

As to the question of whether the Democrats should "write off" the South--absolutely not, because there's too much at stake in the southern Senate races, & because that would allow the Republican strategists to focus all their resources elsewhere. But don't obsess over it either: focus on those states where there is at least a reasonable hope of winning--West Virginia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Florida & Arkansas.

[ February 05, 2004, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: BillyBones ]

BillyBones, some great points. I hadn't realized North Carolina was the most rural of the southern states--it's more rural than Mississippi?

I agree that the Democrats should focus on West Virginia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Florida, and Arkansas. They also should push hard for Nevada and Arizona, which Clinton won. They probably have a chance of winning New Hampshire--in fact, they very likely will win every northeastern state from Maryland to Maine, including Pennsylvania, though that one will be razor thin.

But with Edwards on the ticket they really help themselves with states like Missouri, Louisiana (and Kerry is Roman Catholic), Arkansas, and possibly Kentucky, which did just swing GOP after the sex scandal (!) involving its former Democratic governor. I really think Virginia is a lost cause if it's not Edwards and Clark, and even still very tough; Ohio is more likely, and is vote rich. Indiana will vote for the Republican, any Republican.

Florida is always in play. I say send Lieberman and Graham on a state voting recruitment tour, and MAKE SURE the elderly know how to work those touch-screens!

Gee, you're not asking for TOO much, are you?

BPT336 wrote:
Undercenter.... you missed one state. Your totals didn't add up to 538. Did you give Connecticut to Ross Perot?

Thanks BPT336, yes I did miss one, and no, the father of the phrase "that giant sucking sound..." received no electoral votes. So I revisited this fun little calculator, and re-did my entire map. Repulsican's win 276 to Ketchupcats 262. This can all be avoided if Arizona or Colorado goes Homo, I mean Demo, which mdphl points out is within reach.

One electoral worry out West could be Oregon. Unemployment is a big issue, and the Timber Industry is very powerful. Many locals believe that Mush's Forest initiative would be a big help, and many like his water policy as well. Gore won the state by only 7 thousand votes and Naderites took another 77 thousand. Those 84 thousand votes, out of more than 1.5 million, look very fragile in the current economic climate. This state could go Red.

fantomas wrote:
Okay, I have to ask this again, why on earth do you think New York is not going to go for Kerry-Edwards-Clark? Seriously, if ANY of these three is the standard bearer and/or VP candidate, the Democrats will win the state by a margin of at least 10 to 15%.

As I stated on our first go around regarding New York (different thread), you make some good points fantomas. However, New York does have a Republican Governor, Republican's hold the State Senate, and the Mayor of New York is Republican - someone in New York (lots of someone’s) is voting Republican. Rudy Guiliani is arguably the most popular politician in the Country. Repulsicans are holding their convention in the City, and Mush's junta has already promised the State 20 Billion dollars in 9/11 funds. You point out that all these New York Republicans are actually palatable to Democratic voters - thus they keep winning. With Pataki on one arm, Rudy on the other, and Mush standing at Ground Zero - this image (much like the one of Dumahu on the ruble of the World Trade Center with the blow horn) might make Moronboy a "palatable" Republican to many moderate New York voters. For obvious reasons, the issue of National Security will resonate in New York more than any place in the Country. Enough New Yorker's might still want a cowboy in the White House that will bomb Terrorist-harboring Countries first and ask questions later, someone they perceive as being a leader on the issue - and after 9/11 that would mean Mush.

Having said all that, I put New York in the Dem column - but think the victory will be in single percentage digits, and will require Dems to spend some money to get even that.

I don't think Edwards on the ticket will help Ketchup win the Carolina's. Dumahu won NC (the state that sent Edwards to the Senate) by 220 thousand votes - and SC by more than double that. Billybones and mdphl make good points as to why these states will stay Red. The land of Johnny Reb is now solidly Johnny Reb-publican. Dems have hopes in some of the Border States, but the closer one gets to Terra the worse it gets when a Yankee leads the ticket.

Terra? I thought it was "Tarra?" Is that what she was saying? Terra?

God, she's more annoying than I thought. wink

I always thought it was "Terra," but after checking I've discovered it's "Tara."

A hard game to play, since we can't calculate the number of legitimate minority voters who are going to be purged from the rolls by Republicans.

Or the hundreds of thousands of nonregistered, illegal voters who will falsely claim they were denied the right to vote, thereby getting some leftist federal judge to keep open the polls in Democratic areas well past closing time.

Or the thousands of nonexistent people who will "vote" in Cook County and other Democratic-dominated areas.

And up in the nursery
an absurd little bird
is popping out to say cuckoo
cuckoo, cuckoo.

Really, MIB, why don't you go find Oliver Stone and hunt for the second gunman together?